The role of Inclusionary Othering in Public Health

Abstract Inclusionary Othering has been established in public health literature, in addition to Exclusionary Othering. The concept of Inclusionary Othering was introduced by Mary Canales (2000, 2001, 2010). She developed this term in her doctoral thesis (1998), in which she dealt with the topic of Othering in the context of nursing care. Her conceptualization of Othering focuses primarily on approaches of Symbolic Interactionism. In particular, the theory of role-taking coined by George H. Mead (1962) plays an essential role in the rise of the notion of an ‘inclusive' potential of Othering. Theoretical approaches applied to conceptualize Inclusionary Othering, such as Goffman's stigmatization theory and Mead's theory of role-taking, have been explored in their explanatory power on Othering. Following this, in the context of which Othering emerged, the postcolonial theory was used to discuss whether Othering can have an ‘inclusive' impact in the context of public health. The Symbolic Interactionist approaches analyzed do not use the term Othering. Goffman's stigmatization approach is well suited to explain attribution processes that reduce the Other to a status of deviance. Stereotypical attributions are a necessary component of Othering. Mead's role theory, however, neglects the power asymmetry between the Other and the Non-Other. Accordingly, the hegemonic status of the Non-Other and the structural privileges he or she has remained untouched in the process of role-taking. Moreover, the approach focuses on an interactional level and does not consider the historical, discursive, and structural levels significant for Othering processes in health care settings. Othering already creates exclusion in the construction of Others and therefore cannot have any inclusive effects. In dealing with the consequences of Othering in health care, it is recommended to refer less to inclusion and, instead, to deconstructivist approaches such as critical whiteness.